Having authored arena and stadium studies that support public financing, I have a different perspective from that of Marc Levine, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, who has criticized efforts to develop a platform for public participation in the development of a downtown arena to replace the Bradley Center.

The academic opponents of public funding of sports facilities referenced by Levine in his op-ed published in the Nov. 11 Crossroads do indeed conclude that based on their research dating back to 1990, there is no significant increase in a region's per-capita income attributable to the presence of a professional sports team or facility.

While self-described "economic intuition" and modeling supports this opinion, even those critics concede that there are "intangible benefits" (enhanced community image and regional pride) that while real and potentially substantial "cannot be measured."

Put it this way:

Some of us might feel that the only difference between Milwaukee and Omaha is Lake Michigan, the Milwaukee Bucks and the Milwaukee Brewers, but we can't quantify these differences.

Consultants such as me, who are hired to evaluate the sensibility of spending public money on new sports buildings, argue that the effects on per-capita income are interesting but not the whole story. Other information is of equal importance.

My experience is that community stakeholders, when footing all or part of the bill for construction of an arena costing $350 million to $500 million, are interested in data such as expected jobs, income, sales, property, hotel, rental car and liquor taxes to local government, the impact on school funding, property values, bond ratings, hotel nights and other equally quantifiable metrics.

Coates and Humphreys contrast the findings of Economists with a capital E (those with doctorates) with those offered by consultants, accountants, regional planners, public administrators, local business leaders and anyone else without a doctorate in economics.

(By the way, there also are Economists who have considered "context" and found that there is a "new" generation of arenas and stadiums that generate very positive effects for their cities. For breaking ranks, these academics have been relegated by their peers to lowercase status - down there with us consultants, accountants and the rest).

A detailed analysis I completed of actual historical local and visitor spending related to the Nashville Predators and other events held at Bridgestone Arena found that 17.4% of attendees came from outside the state and 34.9% from outside the county. After the 2004- '05 NHL lockout, I saw similar results in Tampa.

Closer to home, we are familiar with the number of fans from Illinois who attend Chicago Cubs games at Miller Park and then frequent the bars, restaurants and hotels in the area. And we've seen similar out-of-market interest in concerts and family shows held at the Bradley Center.

The leakage or spending by the Bucks that flows outside the community, principally player salaries, is offset by shared NBA revenue that the Bucks receive relating to activity that occurs miles from Wisconsin. In addition, many other cities have mitigated the leakage effect by taxing visiting players and teams. It might be worth examining a reciprocal approach in Milwaukee.

To the great frustration of Levine, communities continue to publicly finance new stadiums and arenas. We all know the story of Oklahoma City: It "unconscionably" financed and built an arena and funded a bounty to entice the former Seattle SuperSonics to relocate. Interestingly, Seattle, Houston, Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Paul, Charlotte and Winnipeg - all cities that initially adopted a "no public money" stance and said "deal me out" - are now back at the table wanting back in the game at dramatically higher antes.

Whether quantifiable economic and fiscal benefits will justify an investment of public money in a new downtown arena that will provide a sustainable home for the Bucks and annually host another 90 to 120 non-basketball events is a matter for detailed analysis and critical thought - not "economic intuition."

Robert E. Leib is a former worldwide tax partner of the Milwaukee office of Arthur Andersen and was the named author of the economic impact study that supported public financing of Miller Park. He is the managing member of Leib Advisors LLC, a Mequon-based sports and entertainment industry economic and financial consulting firm.